Moon Mission: Thanks NASA

[Nitetalon]

Consider this: about 80% of a rocket's weight is propelant, a mixture of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. 10% of the weight is structural. The remaining 10% is cargo capacity. If a rocket launched from the moon only needs to be 1/8 the size of the rocket which semt it there, based on moon's mass to earth's in relation to the escape velocity of the moon compared to earth's (so I assume 1/8 of the earth's), then it would take a minimum of two trips for this moon launched rocket to reach the moon.

So if a rocket is launched from the moon, there have really been 3 rockets launched and not one. This is a ratio of 1:3 in terms of rockets launched from the earth to explore outerspace to rockets launched from the moon to explore outerspace (remember to count the two it took to get there).

Is this a good ratio?

Now consider that in order for the rocket to land on the moon there will be additional fuel needed in the landing module to make a safe landing, but I will disregard this as I don't have the specs on any of this, though if I find them... Now, there will also be needed a rocket launched with men to the moon (or robots as some have proposed) to assemble the rocket (assuming 3 men/robots in one trip could do this) and two rockets launched to carry materials to build the launch pad (assuming the original crew/robots are able to assemble this as well and that it only takes two rockets with material to build a launch pad).

So now the ration is 1:6.

Is this a good ratio? No, because I doubt the 1 succeeds in cost, time, effort and energy what the 6 will take.

Frosty- You most certainly have a dizzying intelect. I have worked in Space Operations for nearly 5 years. Would love to compare brain pan's and see what we could come up with. Your posts are intriguing and thought provoking.

BRAVO! Well said!

[Stixxman]

Look its very simple, somebody said it already, the Earth isn't infinite, we MUST branch out for our own good. Thats an accepted fact, and starting late on something this important is never a good idea. Someone asked if we are going to mars why go back to the moon? Well thats simple too, its about distances, you send a team into mars now and something happens during the mission and blam they all die, too far away to send a rescue mission. But they start a habitat on moon and something goes wrong they can have a rescue team i n ther in five days from the word go. On the moon they can perfect the process of being self sufficient from Earth, which will be the reality for any mission to mars.

[Rhomphaia]

Okay, I would like to say this.

A first step has to be taken somewhere, right?

I say the sooner the better, ESPECIALLY if environmentalists and conservationists are right and our planet is doomed. We need to go to other places.

Is this expensive? Yes. Will it result in human loss? Probably. Is it worth it to take these painful steps so that we can expand mankind's collective borders understanding of the universe? YES!

[Stixxman]

Exactly right Romphaia, it will be to late for regrets of not doing this by the time it is time to do this.

[Frosty]

Okay, I would like to say this.

A first step has to be taken somewhere, right?

I say the sooner the better, ESPECIALLY if environmentalists and conservationists are right and our planet is doomed. We need to go to other places.

Is this expensive? Yes. Will it result in human loss? Probably. Is it worth it to take these painful steps so that we can expand mankind's collective borders understanding of the universe? YES!

So because a few people stand to make fame and money by saying our planet is doomed, we should invest trillions to set up a moon base?

[JennRose]

Why not use those billions to something that could help save the planet we already HAVE? That's us acting like a bunch of parasites; use up one host and then move on to something else. If we take no responsibility for our actions, then we are really missing something vital.

[Stixxman]

It wouldn't be trillions just to set up a moon base. It would be trillions to preserve humanity as a whole. It is inevitable that we will outgrow this planet, I'm of the mind that its pretty far off, but if we start the baby steps now we'll be in a way better position to react to a crisis like that, than we would if we did nothing. I know that the money could be spent on other things that would be an imediate benefit, but its the long run that is more important by far. Why save a few now, when we could save them all later. Its callous I know but it is the nature of the universe to be unforgiving so hedge your bets whenever you can. And yes we are parasite like, but nothing short of a global catastrophee will change that. And that would be for worse than spending money on this. If all the leaders of every country ever thought of was the now, things would be even more messed up than they are now. They have to think of the longveiw.

Edited September 23, 2005 by Stixxman

[indeed]

So because a few people stand to make fame and money by saying our planet is doomed, we should invest trillions to set up a moon base?

If you don't believe we are slowly destroying earth ...

What about the finite resources on earth, one day they will run out

What about a killer asteroid, law of averages say its not if but when

[Stellar]

Why not use those billions to something that could help save the planet we already HAVE?

Do you really think any amount of money is going to help save Earth? The Earth is going to die, no matter what. Its not us that are going to kill it, we're just going to hurt ourselves, and no amount of money is going to prevent that.

[Frosty]

If you don't believe we are slowly destroying earth ...

What about the finite resources on earth, one day they will run out

What about a killer asteroid, law of averages say its not if but when

Finite resources? Such as what? What about a killer asteroid? Look at the moon's surface, it has undoubtedly taken many celestial body impacts itself. And I don't see how an asteroid hitting earth proves humans are destroying earth.

[whoa182]

The earth does a much better job at hiding all it's impacts with Comets, Meteors and Asteroids. Humans have to spread onto another planet to survive... I don't know how you cannot understand that! It should be a priority.

Edited September 24, 2005 by whoa182

[indeed]

Mineral resources and open land to use for farms aswell as renewable timber industries.

There is only an X amount, recycling isn't 100% effective, one day they will run out.

What will happen in X amount of years when the world population cant produce enough food to sustain itself, cull numbers? Rember as the pop goes up, so does the space requires to house and maintain the level of numbers which means the the land left for farms and the like goes down.

I never said an asteroid was caused from humans destroying the Earth, I was giving another example of a good reason to try and branch out in the universe

We may have survived a few smaller impacts, what happens when the big one hits ? Its when, not if, as I said before. The moon doesn't have life forms on it so I don't know why you used that as an example

Edited September 24, 2005 by indeed

[Klaatu]

If we didn't explore, The US would only be populated by Red Indians...And Frosty wouldn't be having this conversation...Going outward into Space is just the next logical step in our evolution...It's what we do....explore.

We should have had a base on the Moon 2 decades ago.

We should also have a Man(or Woman) walking around on Mars NOW!...

But the US lost the initiative back in 1972...Trundling around in low Earth orbit is just crap!

The sooner we get back to the Moon and beyond the better.

[JennRose]

If we didn't explore, The US would only be populated by Red Indians...

That's a horribly ignorant way of phrasing that. And anyway, how is what "white" Europeans did to the Natives of other countries progressive? A quick look at history shows it was barbaric. We plunder and pillage all available resources instead of being responsible and now we are trying to fix the solution by moving.

Edited September 30, 2005 by JennRose

[Mekorig]

JennRose, ok, we stay in planet and learn to recycle and live in harmony, and not to exit outside our atmosphere. Then, our oil reserves begin to fade. We create fusion/solar/etc energy source. Then , more strategic materials begin to fade. We can recycle, but whit each recycle a portion of the material is destroyed, you cant recycle 100 % of something. And also our population keeps growing, even whit restrictive child borning programs. We look for more vital space, and more food sources. Eventually (more sooner than later) we would ocupy all the vital spaec we can ocupy whiout disrupt the natural process of the planet. And then we must go outside to look for more vital space.

Or maybe in 100 years a huge asteroid/comet came in a impact course whit earth, and we dont have the capacibilities to destroy/alter course. Soo, it impacts, and maybe 85 to 99 % of the human race die. If we survive, we will be in a pre-stone age situation, whit worse climatical situation. I dont think we can survive in that situation.

The solution: Expand outside the planet. BEcause if we dont do that, we would die has an race.

[Original]

Mekorig, I completely agree. I think space exploration is more of a necessity then anything.

[Frosty]

JennRose, ok, we stay in planet and learn to recycle and live in harmony, and not to exit outside our atmosphere. Then, our oil reserves begin to fade. We create fusion/solar/etc energy source. Then , more strategic materials begin to fade. We can recycle, but whit each recycle a portion of the material is destroyed, you cant recycle 100 % of something. And also our population keeps growing, even whit restrictive child borning programs. We look for more vital space, and more food sources. Eventually (more sooner than later) we would ocupy all the vital spaec we can ocupy whiout disrupt the natural process of the planet. And then we must go outside to look for more vital space.

Or maybe in 100 years a huge asteroid/comet came in a impact course whit earth, and we dont have the capacibilities to destroy/alter course. Soo, it impacts, and maybe 85 to 99 % of the human race die. If we survive, we will be in a pre-stone age situation, whit worse climatical situation. I dont think we can survive in that situation.

The solution: Expand outside the planet. BEcause if we dont do that, we would die has an race.

So you say the solution is to expand out into a resoureless environment because we may run out of reasources here on earth? I don't see anything wrong with that.

[turbonium]

So you say the solution is to expand out into a resoureless environment because we may run out of reasources here on earth? I don't see anything wrong with that.

LOL! Makes perfect sense to me!!

[Klaatu]

Sorry JennRose...The "Red Indian " remark was not posted to be offensive...

Maybe I could have worded it better.

[JennRose]

No problem, Klaatu. I appreciate your response.

But my point with all of this, Melkorig and everyone: How pressing of an issue is the state of energy consumption, resource depletion and impoverished, starving people all over the globe? I think it's a much more immediate issue than spending billions we don't have in order to prepare for a one day, potential asteroid. Besides, unless we figure out a way to be more concious consumers, we will encounter the very same problems elsewhere. We have to change our habits, not our habitat.

[Original]

JennRose, that is a good point. I think there should be an active effort on both sides of the issue, as in preserving our current habitat while seeking another. It is important to have security in case an astroid or man made disaster makes our current one unliveable. However we should prolong earth's life for as long as possible, so it would be important to try to change our current destructive behavior.

[pbarosso]

Uh, guess what? We already live off the land here on earth. The only thing anyone can use to survive on the moon is solar energy, which can be found here on earth. That's about it. No water, no iron, no coke, no limestone, no oil, no uranium, no plants, no animals, nada, zilch.

Rocket launches from the moon? Less gravity? Fraction of a cost? What are you smoking? You do realize that in order to launch a rocket from the moon, the rocket, its parts and the propellant must first be launched from earth to the moon? If a rocket is capable of escaping the earth at 7mps it can probably by pass the moon's gravitational pull as well wouldn't you think? Then that's not taking into consideration the amount of material and men necessary to launch to the moon, build a launch pad, and maintain it. This would take thousands of men. Thousands of rockets launches over decades costing trillions of dollars. And for what?

My attitude towards space exploration is not to p*** away billions of dollars on something we've already done (explore the moon). In the 60's and 70's we found out it was a barren rock. NASA is best suited with rovers and sattelites to do its exploration.

boy, get your science right. there is hydrogen at the south polar region. in other words rocket fuel. why dont you go run for public office if you cant get your head out of your south pole and understand that human nature is such that we need to explore and spread? you should know that information is a highly priced commodity. how much do you think a four year degree costs these days from an acredited school? oil? uranium? how about the valuable info living on the moon provides.NOT TO MENTION the huge jolt to our countries economy and tech industries. please dont post again unless you use that melon on top of your short neck.

[Hazzard]

One of NASA's reasons for going back to the Moon is to demonstrate that astronauts can essentially "live off the land" by using lunar resources to produce water, fuel and other valuable commodities.

Such capabilities are considered extremely important to human expeditions to Mars which, because of the distances involved, would be much longer missions entailing a minimum of 500 days spent on the planet's surface.

Frosty are wondering what there is on the moon that is not here on earth.

Here are just a few things I can think of.

-Unclouded solar radiation

-Helium-3

-Unlimited vacuum

-Low gravity

-Easier access to interplanetary space

[Essan]

I just wish they'd hurry up and get back to the Moon so we can finally put an end to all this "We didn't really go toe the Moon" nonsense

On a more practical level, we can't stay on this planet forever. There's not enought space, not enough resources and we're too vulnerbale. If mankind is to survive we must colonise the stars. And the Moon is the first in a great many steps we need to take to get there. Once established on the oon, then we can move on to Mars. And then to Epsilon Eridani.

Oh, and I guess the small matter of the Chinese planning to land on the moon probably comes into the equation somewhere

[Frosty]

boy, get your science right. there is hydrogen at the south polar region. in other words rocket fuel. why dont you go run for public office if you cant get your head out of your south pole and understand that human nature is such that we need to explore and spread? you should know that information is a highly priced commodity. how much do you think a four year degree costs these days from an acredited school? oil? uranium? how about the valuable info living on the moon provides.NOT TO MENTION the huge jolt to our countries economy and tech industries. please dont post again unless you use that melon on top of your short neck.

We aren't talking about magic where fuel and oxidizer come out of no where, it takes thousands of manhours to ship the equipment, assemble equipment and operate this equipment. You are talking science fiction, not science fact. You obviously haven't thought through on the whole cost problem. This effort would take hundreds of billions to launch a single rocket.

LOL! You statement in bold is not even comprehendible